Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the ancient world, everyone except Jews acknowledged that there were *lots* of other deities. Even the religion that became Judaism started out with a multiplicity of deities. Also, most of the authors of the Old Testament acknowledged that other Gods existed.
Is it simply better to believe in a different kind of God? Why not simply give up on the idea that God is all powerful? Why not, in fact, adopt a “deistic” conception of God?
Why appeal to a divine causality for the start of all things when everything else can be explained apart from divine causality?
As I understand it, deism implies that God is indifferent?
I don't think "A" God (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) and a deistic God are the only two options and I don't believe in either, but I'm also not an atheist.
What makes you jump to the conclusion that some of us already haven't done so?
After failed attempts to be an atheist, I started to differentiate in my mind the frightening, angry Biblical character I was raised to believe in from the something wider and deeper I began to sense by referring to it in my brain as "Real God". I don't need to do that anymore, but it helped me break out of the constant anxiety and soul-crushing despair that belief in the God Of The Literal Bible had cast upon me from my childhood.
Well, that's what Gnostics said. Real God didn't create this world as is. Demiurg did. Then, convinced a certain number of followers that is is one and only real god. As gods feed off praise, you know. So more praise - more powerful that deity is. It's simple basic chemotaxis.
Deism says it's the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge.
I dare say that word and philosophy was made up by a person that never had a revelation. Ha!
Never had the Doors of Perception opened ---never had a moment of
Cosmic Consciousness, (coined By Dr. Bucke in the 19th c), was never visited by an angel or Krishna
or the Holy Spirit whomever from the spiritual realm /world, knocking their socks off.
But, was rather the proverbial frog from the pond (sweet little guy) - not the frog that saw the Ocean.
Einstein wasn't atheist but didn't believe God is interested in the individual.
But then, he was never in a position to need God.
If he was, he would have found out.
In the ancient world, everyone except Jews acknowledged that there were *lots* of other deities. Even the religion that became Judaism started out with a multiplicity of deities. Also, most of the authors of the Old Testament acknowledged that other Gods existed.
Is it simply better to believe in a different kind of God? Why not simply give up on the idea that God is all powerful? Why not, in fact, adopt a “deistic” conception of God?
Why appeal to a divine causality for the start of all things when everything else can be explained apart from divine causality?
Monotheism won out because its a better concept. It WORKS better.
As time went on it was christianity that first came up with the attribute that God is Love.
Judaism and Islam both adopted that idea, I think after 1918.
A deistic God is fine until you find yourself beyond human aid, then have to call on God for help.
At that point you discover theism works , deism offers no help.
The trouble with "many gods" is it becomes many voices in the mind, that chatter is ego playing god.
The "still quiet voice" is more clear, calm and makes more sense.
With a theistic God who has infinite power and infinite Love then it logically leads to Prime Mover, first cause.
The design evident in the cosmological constants implies designer.
Being able to explain how physics works, to me, only shows how God does things, it doesn't eliminate God.
More science = more evidence for God, not less.
Only the literal bible thumping creationists are crippled by advances in science.
Theres no need to appeal to divine creator, just follow the evidence in science, it leads to God.
Ok. Guess we're done here. I'm sorry we can't have a nice discussion.
This is what we call 'running away'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
Monotheism won out because its a better concept. It WORKS better.
As time went on it was christianity that first came up with the attribute that God is Love.
Judaism and Islam both adopted that idea, I think after 1918.
A deistic God is fine until you find yourself beyond human aid, then have to call on God for help.
At that point you discover theism works , deism offers no help.
The trouble with "many gods" is it becomes many voices in the mind, that chatter is ego playing god.
The "still quiet voice" is more clear, calm and makes more sense.
With a theistic God who has infinite power and infinite Love then it logically leads to Prime Mover, first cause.
The design evident in the cosmological constants implies designer.
Being able to explain how physics works, to me, only shows how God does things, it doesn't eliminate God.
More science = more evidence for God, not less.
Only the literal bible thumping creationists are crippled by advances in science.
Theres no need to appeal to divine creator, just follow the evidence in science, it leads to God.
That's a good post. I may not agree with your views, but they were well and fairly expressed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
